Rationale for Public Support of Scientific Research Shifts

For most of American history, public support for scientific research has taken its cue from U.S. technology policy, according to research by Vernon Ruttan, retired Regents Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. But, said Ruttan, Vannevar Bush's 1945 report, "Science: The Endless Frontier," began an era of investment in research not tied to specific technological goals. Since then, the scientific community has steadfastly resisted attempts by Congress and presidents to impose economic criteria on the allocation of research resources. Ruttan will present an overview of the continuing struggle to assess the economic value of research at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 5, during a meeting of the American Physical Society in the Austin Convention Center in Austin, Texas.

It was only in the second half of the 20th century that the social benefits of scientific research began to be clearly articulated, Ruttan said. Several studies showed that the returns on public investment in scientific research were substantial, in both agricultural and manufacturing sectors. Yet, the scientific community has had great difficulty drawing up useful criteria to guide the allocation of resources to scientific research. In 1992 a frustrated Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act in an effort to steer research in directions that would yield tangible benefits in such areas as security, health and productivity. The legislation was largely ineffective, said Ruttan.

In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences established a committee to draft criteria for use "in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, the appropriate balance among different types of institutions that conduct such research, and the means of assuring objectivity in the allocation process." Headed by former academy president Frank Press, the committee recommended that research budgets should help the United States achieve preeminence in certain fields and world-class status in other major fields. This, said Ruttan and others, tends to place science in the realm of competitive activities in which international standing is more important than results. Instead, Ruttan pointed out that preeminence in one field--biomedical science--does not translate directly into higher health indicators, as evidenced, for example, by the high U.S. infant mortality rate.

Other scientists, notably Alvin Weinberg, former director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have said that the merits of any scientific field can be measured by the field's contributions to related fields. In this view, basic research is an intermediate input that enhances the productivity of related fields, as well as applied research and technology development. Scientists tend to agree that peer review is a good method of evaluating individual research projects, but economic evaluations at this level are inappropriate, Ruttan said. At broader levels, external economic and social evaluation becomes more relevant, and it is clear that we have entered a period when all "Big Science" research and development programs will be subject to stricter review, he said. As it seeks funding and authorization, each big mission--whether the Global Climate Change program or the ill-fated Superconducting Supercollider project--needs a watchdog, an analytical unit devoted to critical evaluation of the mission and demonstration of its merits to congressional committees and other authorities.

In Ruttan's view, the post-World War II era of basic science being funded "without thought of practical ends" has largely ended. Even though scientists still resist the application of economic criteria in determining the worthiness of research, areas of science for which benefits cannot be identified within the next 50 years will have increasing difficulty in achieving the credibility necessary to stake a claim on substantial scientific and technical resources.